I'm not sure that Raptor class aircraft are the way forward...
Their cost means that their number will always be relatively low, and their running cost is colossal. Their complexity means that if a war between large countries erupted (their primary use), it would be extremely difficult to train enough support people quickly enough to be useful before the war was lost or won.
Using 200 million dollar planes, whose bomb loads cost > 50K, and > 10K per hour in fuel is not optimal if one is bombing 17 year olds with AK47s.
Under combat conditions, even with no attempt by the enemy to shoot back, a modern jet has about a 1/750 chance of crashing due to pilot error, equipment faiure etc.
If I were a major manufacturing country, like China, I'd go the other way.
Don't build mainframes, build iPads.
For the cost of one fully armed Raptor, one could build at least 250 relatively smart UAV / Cruise missiles.
So imagine a Chinese attack on a base defended by Raptors...
10 Raptors, 2500 Chinese Boxers
Even with excellent pilots, supported by AWACS, there is just no way the Raptors would succeed.
Also, American political / TV culture us very risk averse.
In recent fights, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, US forces have often killed 100 enemies (or at least people standing near them) per US death.
But Vietnam was lost, and many Americans do not see the price in current wars as worth fighting even though more Americans died in individual battles that few now have heard of than both current wars put together.
That means a battle where US forces fight an enemy, killing 5,000 and forcing them to retreat in a disorderly fashion, but where 1,000 US troops died, might actually have the same effect as a defeat.
War on a large scale is economics.
If you shoot down hundreds of $1 million dollar unmanned aircraft, you have done more harm than killing 1,000 ground troops. But Americans value the lives of their servicemen rather more than most other countries, so fighting with drones should be the default pattern.
But America cannot make rational defence choices.
Options are wholly dictated by defence contractors, who would rather make billion dollar planes.
A good and sad example of this is body armour for ground troops.
Some wars are a 'surprise' in terms of the equipment you need.
But it's extremely unlikely that US troops would be in a war where no one shot at them.
But body armour is pathetically cheap, hence the makers can't afford the "campaign contributions" necessary to get them bought.
American has the tech to make the best UAVs though Israel is pretty good as well,
but it won't make them in any real numbers, and that's should worry some people.
